AuthorTopic: Summer smoke haze (Read 5341 times)

Some time ago I posted a shot here called Autumn Smoke Haze. Here is a new one called Summer Smoke Haze. Same river, different spot, this time the smoke is from the bushfires that have burned about 2 million acres of forest around this part of Australia.The mood of the first shot appealed to me. Dale Cotton speaks of "the spirit of a place" in an essay on his site where he kindly used that photo as an example (embarrassing me in the process), and I think the spirit was at work again this morning. However, as before, the cropping is causing me some angst and I would appreciate some comment. Both shots are posted:Autumn 2004[attachment=1465:attachment]

Some time ago I posted a shot here called Autumn Smoke Haze. Here is a new one called Summer Smoke Haze. Same river, different spot, this time the smoke is from the bushfires that have burned about 2 million acres of forest around this part of Australia.The mood of the first shot appealed to me. Dale Cotton speaks of "the spirit of a place" in an essay on his site where he kindly used that photo as an example (embarrassing me in the process), and I think the spirit was at work again this morning. However, as before, the cropping is causing me some angst and I would appreciate some comment. Both shots are posted:Autumn 2004[attachment=1465:attachment]

I like the mood of this picture a lot, and the newer one beats the older one IMHO. I would be tempted to crop a bit off the left (to just to the right of the light area on the lower large tree branch, where it goes behind the foliage), and a little more than twice that off the right (cropping out the light area on the rock.) That puts the stream a bit more to the right of center, and gives prominence to the trees on the left.

Hi Eric & Howie, thanks for your comments and crops.Eric, your crop addresses the imbalance, but I hate to see that slanting rock go! The original photo has been cropped top and bottom - overexposed sky & sky reflection in water, but the light area down the middle offends the rule of thirds as Howie points out. I actually went back later in the day to try again from a different position to improve on it, but you guessed it, that scene was gone. The light wasn't there any more.Thanks for your input.Bob.

Bob: Dale Cotton is going to embarrass you again. This is a fabulous picture and I wouldn't change a thing about the cropping - or anything else for that matter.

Eric and Howie: it's all a matter of taste, but I sympathize with Bob about not wanting to remove any portion of this scene. When the rule of thirds gets in your way, let me suggest an alternate route. My own approach, after more than 50 years in the arts: the rule of thirds is for beginners; real artists prefer the rule of thirty-thirds. ;) The river falls on the 19/33s mark, and that's good enough for me.

[Aside to Bob: there was a large forest fire north of where I live a few years back. Driving my son somewhere first thing in the morning, I wondered what the strange white haze and peculiar smell was. When the radio told us it was a forest fire, it felt like an unexpected slap in the face. It's hard to imagine any greater contrast than that between the fairy land beauty of your landscape and the reality of thousands of feeling creatures being burned alive. Either Mother Nature is cruel in ultimate measure or She weeps in terrible beauty.]

I well remember your first shot of the smoke haze, and this new one is a beauty. The quality of light is magical. If I were to think about any changes, I would crop a bit off the left side--not as much as Eric suggests, but just enough to eliminate some of the clutter in the foreground and along the near bank which tends to pull the eye out of the frame. That has the added benefit of moving the river out of the center of the frame and thereby making the composition a bit more dynamic.

The second one is beautiful! I wouldn't change a thing. It has a "painterly" appearance that goes well with the subject; reminds one a bit of an Albert Bierstadt painting. The violation of the rule of thirds isn't a problem here - it has a semi-panoramic feel, where my eye sweeps the length of the image, seeing something new in each section. (Am I making sense here?)

Now that I've had a sleep and it seems the fire danger has (temporarily) abated, I'd like to thank you all for your kind comments regarding the second pic. I guess my question re the cropping has been answered.Thank you all.Bob.

The second one is beautiful! I wouldn't change a thing. It has a "painterly" appearance that goes well with the subject; reminds one a bit of an Albert Bierstadt painting. The violation of the rule of thirds isn't a problem here - it has a semi-panoramic feel, where my eye sweeps the length of the image, seeing something new in each section. (Am I making sense here?)

It always a a warm feeling when people whose work you admire praise your own. There is an Australian artist (long dead) named Charles McCubbin and some guests remarked that it reminded them of his work. I am not so foolish as to believe that my work is anything more than rank amateurish with perhaps a dash of luck (or, as Dale Cotton reminds us, the spirit of a place lending a hand). I learn more each day, forget half of it, and so make slow progress.Thanks for your kind comments,Bob.